terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

I don't defend Muslima that much and I suspect she would be pretty surprised that you think I defend her at all. I do often share a perspective similar to hers so I may appear to be arguing on the same side. There are very distinct and important differences between us. She is Muslim and I'm not. She is discussing her personal beliefs and her religion. I could as easily be discussing Formula 1 racing or the difference between Gibson and Fender guitars (if you want to see a true religious war, let's discuss that). When Muslima discusses Islam, unless she says otherwise, it is implied that she means Islam as she practices it or as she believes it. If she says "Women are equal in Islam", she is providing her understanding of Islam. What you should do is discuss other groups of Muslims who don't think women are equal in Islam. Because if Muslima says, "Woman are equal in Islam" and you say, "Women are not equal in Islam", I would say that both of you are wrong. Those statements are only true within the context of specific Muslims because there is no single "Islam".

Fender guitars suck. Just for the record. My son is trading his in this weekend or next.

OK. This may not be the place, but since you wonder why some of us distrust Muslima so, I'll get into it briefly. Just one example. Muslima said "women are equal in Islam." No elaboration, no context, nothing more. As you suggest now, several of us started pointing out Muslim divorce laws, inheritance rights, marital property and custody rights, value of a woman's testimony in financial courts, and that these things are in the Quran to various extents and practiced to various extents in all countries with sharia law. Three pages later, Muslima says, "Oh, I didn't mean western linear ideas of equality, which involve equality of legal rights, instead I meant the Muslim idea of equality of responsibilities, and you all should have known that from the start." A minor issue is that it felt like dawwah, and several people pointed that out. The main issue is, it felt very deceptive, because I venture to guess that 95% of her readers had no clue about women's rights in Islam as opposed to the western idea of legal equality we all grew up with here. I'm also pretty sure that Muslima knew very well that 95% of her readers grew up with western ideas of legal equality and had no clue what she really meant about women being equal. So anyway, we did what you said, which is to point out these aspects of sharia law, but at the end of the day (and after many similar examples) many of us from those threads don't trust her and are more than used to challenging her. You're seeing that on this thread.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't watched the video, Muslima, but I must tell you that I'm often struck by your tagline, "The problem is not Radical Islam, but Radical Igorance."

There are plenty of ignorant people in the world. They are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. Or at least not on a large level, although they may win the Darwin award occasionally.

Radical Islam and Islamic extremists are a problem.

To follow your thought, there are plenty of Muslims that are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. If the problem was with Islam, the 1.6B of us would all be violent people. The problem is with Ignorance that birth radicalism and this is why you have fundamentalists of every denomination & religion. That's what i meant by that tagline.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

I don't defend Muslima that much and I suspect she would be pretty surprised that you think I defend her at all. I do often share a perspective similar to hers so I may appear to be arguing on the same side. There are very distinct and important differences between us. She is Muslim and I'm not. She is discussing her personal beliefs and her religion. I could as easily be discussing Formula 1 racing or the difference between Gibson and Fender guitars (if you want to see a true religious war, let's discuss that). When Muslima discusses Islam, unless she says otherwise, it is implied that she means Islam as she practices it or as she believes it. If she says "Women are equal in Islam", she is providing her understanding of Islam. What you should do is discuss other groups of Muslims who don't think women are equal in Islam. Because if Muslima says, "Woman are equal in Islam" and you say, "Women are not equal in Islam", I would say that both of you are wrong. Those statements are only true within the context of specific Muslims because there is no single "Islam".

Fender guitars suck. Just for the record. My son is trading his in this weekend or next.

OK. This may not be the place, but since you wonder why some of us distrust Muslima so, I'll get into it briefly. Just one example. Muslima said "women are equal in Islam." No elaboration, no context, nothing more. As you suggest now, several of us started pointing out Muslim divorce laws, inheritance rights, marital property and custody rights, value of a woman's testimony in financial courts, and that these things are in the Quran to various extents and practiced to various extents in all countries with sharia law. Three pages later, Muslima says, "Oh, I didn't mean western linear ideas of equality, which involve equality of legal rights, instead I meant the Muslim idea of equality of responsibilities, and you all should have known that from the start." A minor issue is that it felt like dawwah, and several people pointed that out. The main issue is, it felt very deceptive, because I venture to guess that 95% of her readers had no clue about women's rights in Islam as opposed to the western idea of legal equality we all grew up with here. I'm also pretty sure that Muslima knew very well that 95% of her readers grew up with western ideas of legal equality and had no clue what she really meant about women being equal. So anyway, we did what you said, which is to point out these aspects of sharia law, but at the end of the day (and after many similar examples) many of us from those threads don't trust her and are more than used to challenging her. You're seeing that on this thread.

That's a lie and the rest is also totally false but keep living in your twisted world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Frances best response would be to.embrace its moderate Muslim.and Jewish populations. Both seem under attack by this human garbage, along with the rest of the people / ideals of France.

They also need to get rid of the “no-go zones” in their country. These areas seem to breed extremists. Kind of crazy that there are numerous “zones” that law enforcement refuses to police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So Jeff, I know you'll find a new way to say that Muslima is right and I'm wrong, even if it's just accusing me again of non-existent contradictions. I'm starting to think you're really full of it. Have at it.

I am sorry that this has become an issue. I was trying to compliment you on your post. The only thing I might accuse you of is poor reading skills. You quoted a post that said, "these actions are inexplicable". You wrote, "I agree". Then, you provided an explanation. How can you both agree that the actions are inexplicable and then explain them? It's not a big deal and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I was simply confused by your post because of this contradiction.

This has nothing to do with Muslima and I don't understand your obsession with her. I didn't mention her once.

Apology accepted. If "I'm sorry it has become an issue that you have poor reading comprehension and you can't write clearly" is an apology. Whatever, it'll have to do.

Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

You can't let one poster get under your skin. I have seen Muslima jump into religious conversations specifically posted about Christ in the religion forum and speak about how in Islam he is only a respectable prophet. It never occurs to her that it is offensive to those who have a different belief system to constantly interject herself in conversations and, yes, derail, in the name of her Prophet. I sense she believes it is her right and obligation to interject her belief system anywhere she deems fit but some deem this as proselytizing. She might note that as passionate as she is about her belief system, there are others who feel the same about theirs and would appreciate respect when she invites herself into Christian conversations that are not about the Prophet Muhammad. Yes, I know I've ventured a bit off topic.

I happen to like the moderator whether bumping heads or not. There isn't one person alive who doesn't have or enjoy a good go-round (especially with some good zingers) when talking politics. Respectfully, I do think that Muslima has been given a forum to espouse her religious and political beliefs with absolutely minimal reproach (and I'm not talking about giving free reign to the crazies who believe that immigrants should be shipped back in crates or that Obama is responsible for your disconnected phone).

While I think Muslima's purpose is to educate about her religion and promulgate her political views (nothing wrong with that), I hope the same free speech that is afforded her (regardless whether it is Christianity or Judaism) would be afforded to someone who might come along who is verbal like her and allow them to espouse their religious views/beliefs without condemnation even if it's in the political forum as she has frequently done.

Just my viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Frances best response would be to.embrace its moderate Muslim.and Jewish populations. Both seem under attack by this human garbage, along with the rest of the people / ideals of France.

They also need to get rid of the “no-go zones” in their country. These areas seem to breed extremists. Kind of crazy that there are numerous “zones” that law enforcement refuses to police.

I agree. America got rid of their 'no-go zones' by passing laws outlawing segregation.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't watched the video, Muslima, but I must tell you that I'm often struck by your tagline, "The problem is not Radical Islam, but Radical Igorance."

There are plenty of ignorant people in the world. They are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. Or at least not on a large level, although they may win the Darwin award occasionally.

Radical Islam and Islamic extremists are a problem.

To follow your thought, there are plenty of Muslims that are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. If the problem was with Islam, the 1.6B of us would all be violent people. The problem is with Ignorance that birth radicalism and this is why you have fundamentalists of every denomination & religion. That's what i meant by that tagline.

And yet something's going on in Paris mosques. What is that?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

I don't defend Muslima that much and I suspect she would be pretty surprised that you think I defend her at all. I do often share a perspective similar to hers so I may appear to be arguing on the same side. There are very distinct and important differences between us. She is Muslim and I'm not. She is discussing her personal beliefs and her religion. I could as easily be discussing Formula 1 racing or the difference between Gibson and Fender guitars (if you want to see a true religious war, let's discuss that). When Muslima discusses Islam, unless she says otherwise, it is implied that she means Islam as she practices it or as she believes it. If she says "Women are equal in Islam", she is providing her understanding of Islam. What you should do is discuss other groups of Muslims who don't think women are equal in Islam. Because if Muslima says, "Woman are equal in Islam" and you say, "Women are not equal in Islam", I would say that both of you are wrong. Those statements are only true within the context of specific Muslims because there is no single "Islam".

Fender guitars suck. Just for the record. My son is trading his in this weekend or next.

OK. This may not be the place, but since you wonder why some of us distrust Muslima so, I'll get into it briefly. Just one example. Muslima said "women are equal in Islam." No elaboration, no context, nothing more. As you suggest now, several of us started pointing out Muslim divorce laws, inheritance rights, marital property and custody rights, value of a woman's testimony in financial courts, and that these things are in the Quran to various extents and practiced to various extents in all countries with sharia law. Three pages later, Muslima says, "Oh, I didn't mean western linear ideas of equality, which involve equality of legal rights, instead I meant the Muslim idea of equality of responsibilities, and you all should have known that from the start." A minor issue is that it felt like dawwah, and several people pointed that out. The main issue is, it felt very deceptive, because I venture to guess that 95% of her readers had no clue about women's rights in Islam as opposed to the western idea of legal equality we all grew up with here. I'm also pretty sure that Muslima knew very well that 95% of her readers grew up with western ideas of legal equality and had no clue what she really meant about women being equal. So anyway, we did what you said, which is to point out these aspects of sharia law, but at the end of the day (and after many similar examples) many of us from those threads don't trust her and are more than used to challenging her. You're seeing that on this thread.

That's a lie and the rest is also totally false but keep living in your twisted world

Here you are again, insulting people instead of responding to the substantive points. You did offer an unqualified claim that "women are equal in Islam," didn't you. You did say, later, "oh, I didn't mean your western idea of legal equality, which I prefer to call 'linear' equality, I meant something else," didn't you.

[Anonymous]

A song by a French musician of North African origin. In it, in a humorous manner, he sings his experience with discrimination. "I want to integrate! I'll eat pork if I have to!"

If you don't speak French, the intro will probably suffice. In it, a job interviewer congratulates him for his impressive resume, but then he asks "what's the origin of your name?". Things go downhill after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A song by a French musician of North African origin. In it, in a humorous manner, he sings his experience with discrimination. "I want to integrate! I'll eat pork if I have to!"

If you don't speak French, the intro will probably suffice. In it, a job interviewer congratulates him for his impressive resume, but then he asks "what's the origin of your name?". Things go downhill after that.

Master's degree holder, LaQuita Shaniqua Jones, has the same problem here. I think I'll save my sympathies for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can't let one poster get under your skin. I have seen Muslima jump into religious conversations specifically posted about Christ in the religion forum and speak about how in Islam he is only a respectable prophet. It never occurs to her that it is offensive to those who have a different belief system to constantly interject herself in conversations and, yes, derail, in the name of her Prophet. I sense she believes it is her right and obligation to interject her belief system anywhere she deems fit but some deem this as proselytizing. She might note that as passionate as she is about her belief system, there are others who feel the same about theirs and would appreciate respect when she invites herself into Christian conversations that are not about the Prophet Muhammad. Yes, I know I've ventured a bit off topic.

I happen to like the moderator whether bumping heads or not. There isn't one person alive who doesn't have or enjoy a good go-round (especially with some good zingers) when talking politics. Respectfully, I do think that Muslima has been given a forum to espouse her religious and political beliefs with absolutely minimal reproach (and I'm not talking about giving free reign to the crazies who believe that immigrants should be shipped back in crates or that Obama is responsible for your disconnected phone).

While I think Muslima's purpose is to educate about her religion and promulgate her political views (nothing wrong with that), I hope the same free speech that is afforded her (regardless whether it is Christianity or Judaism) would be afforded to someone who might come along who is verbal like her and allow them to espouse their religious views/beliefs without condemnation even if it's in the political forum as she has frequently done.

Just my viewpoint.

Thanks for the thoughtful post! I know, I shouldn't let her get under my skin, and I should always respond like an adult. I'm a lefty who reads the Guardian every day and who has lived in other countries, so I consider myself very tolerant. Perhaps there's something about untruth or unfairness that bugs me in general, and my cup runs over where she's concerned. But, I need to take a break, clearly.

[Anonymous]

and the cartoonists who make fun of everyone were being inclusive in my books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can't let one poster get under your skin. I have seen Muslima jump into religious conversations specifically posted about Christ in the religion forum and speak about how in Islam he is only a respectable prophet. It never occurs to her that it is offensive to those who have a different belief system to constantly interject herself in conversations and, yes, derail, in the name of her Prophet. I sense she believes it is her right and obligation to interject her belief system anywhere she deems fit but some deem this as proselytizing. She might note that as passionate as she is about her belief system, there are others who feel the same about theirs and would appreciate respect when she invites herself into Christian conversations that are not about the Prophet Muhammad. Yes, I know I've ventured a bit off topic.

I happen to like the moderator whether bumping heads or not. There isn't one person alive who doesn't have or enjoy a good go-round (especially with some good zingers) when talking politics. Respectfully, I do think that Muslima has been given a forum to espouse her religious and political beliefs with absolutely minimal reproach (and I'm not talking about giving free reign to the crazies who believe that immigrants should be shipped back in crates or that Obama is responsible for your disconnected phone).

While I think Muslima's purpose is to educate about her religion and promulgate her political views (nothing wrong with that), I hope the same free speech that is afforded her (regardless whether it is Christianity or Judaism) would be afforded to someone who might come along who is verbal like her and allow them to espouse their religious views/beliefs without condemnation even if it's in the political forum as she has frequently done.

Just my viewpoint.

Thanks for the thoughtful post! I know, I shouldn't let her get under my skin, and I should always respond like an adult. I'm a lefty who reads the Guardian every day and who has lived in other countries, so I consider myself very tolerant. Perhaps there's something about untruth or unfairness that bugs me in general, and my cup runs over where she's concerned. But, I need to take a break, clearly.

We all do sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It's prohibited in all of Islam? Who did the prohibiting, if it's not the Quran? Certainly it was prohibited by someone by the time Muslims were hiding the mosaics in Hagia Sophia around 1500. Yet, if it's not in the Quran, and you said earlier that only God truly knows what's in the Quran anyway, and you also said there's no single Islam... then what is the basis for the claim about an ongoing prohibition about images including cartoons? Is there room here to start even a limited discussion about Islam in the 21st century?

[Anonymous]

One can draw Muhammed and one should have at it. Those that don't want to gaze upon such images should not purchase the magazines, art etc. The Koran is an extremely confusing book; many of the rules of Islam come from the hadith which record Muhammed's life--and serve as a model. Since he lived in practically a stone age culture (his big struggle was against people who literally worshipped rock idols) a lot of his life is grounded in that time period. Marrying many wives made sense back then--there were a lot of widows who needed protection. Other rules on women are inconsistent. He supposedly consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 10 and he 53 (gross). She is also a revered figure who recorded many hadith and rode into battle on camel. People who literally wish to follow the hadith are people who live in the stone age. Much like Christianity (Im Christian) has been open to feminist critique for years, Islam needs some air breathed into it. It's pretty darned dusty overall. Sorry--but feminist Muslims are not by and large embraced, women do live very submissively in many parts of the Muslim world (genital mutilation anyone?), there are horrible laws and practices on the books with Sharia--and it goes back to a stone age that persists unexamined by the large majority of practicioners.